When ADVOs Are Weaponised in Family Law Conflict in NSW

A Special Counsel’s Insights

KEY TAKE OUTS:

• ADVOs are a vital protection tool, but in high-conflict family law matters they can sometimes be misused as a litigation tactic.
• Courts are prepared to identify and strongly condemn the manipulation of the ADVO system where evidence does not support the allegations.
• Careful evidence testing, forensic analysis and persistence to hearing can expose false or exaggerated claims.
• Calling out provable fabrications protects the integrity of the ADVO system and the safety of genuine victims.

---

Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) are a critical protective mechanism in New South Wales. They exist to prevent intimidation, harassment, stalking, threats and violence, and they play a vital role in reducing family violence and saving lives.

However, the integrity of the ADVO system matters. In some high-conflict separations, ADVO applications are pursued not primarily for protection, but as a way to gain advantage in family law proceedings, control the narrative, or continue coercive behaviour through legal systems.

This risk is particularly acute where parenting proceedings are already underway. Even an interim ADVO, or an order made “without admissions”, can significantly affect parenting arrangements, risk assessments, and the balance of power between parties for months.

 

A De-Identified NSW Local Court Case

In a recent NSW Local Court matter handled by one of our lawyers (reasons delivered 26 August 2025), an ADVO application ran alongside ongoing Family Court parenting proceedings.

The allegation concerned a minor physical incident said to have occurred during a dispute about property. What stood out in the Magistrate’s reasons was not just the dismissal of the application, but the Court’s assessment of the evidence and the purpose behind the proceedings.

The Magistrate identified multiple inconsistencies in the applicant’s account. Witness evidence did not support the applicant’s version in key respects. There were no photographs or demonstrated injuries. Two people present at the time could not consistently describe a basic feature of the alleged incident.

Importantly, the ADVO application had been commenced by Police. Despite the lack of supporting evidence, and despite conflicting written statements provided to Police at the time, a request by the solicitor with carriage of the matter for the application to be withdrawn was declined. The matter therefore proceeded to hearing.

The Court’s findings were unusually strong. The Magistrate described the application as, at best, “weak and frivolous”, but went further, finding it to be:

• “a malicious, intentional and contrived manipulation of the Apprehended Domestic Violence process”; and

• pursued with a “deliberate effort to use the criminal justice system to continue to inflict pain, harm and suffering” on the respondent.

The application was dismissed. While the Magistrate did not criticise Police (who often have limited discretion once an application is commenced), the final description of the conduct was that it was a “despicable use” of the ADVO system.

 

When Weaponisation Escalates Further

A separate matter conducted by the same lawyer demonstrates how misuse of the ADVO framework can escalate beyond tactical allegations and into objectively serious criminal conduct.

In that case, during Family Court proceedings, one party accused the other of attempted murder. Photographs were provided to Police and said to depict injuries caused by our client.

Given the seriousness of the allegation, the evidence was examined immediately and in detail. Enquiries were made about the timing and source of the photographs, and the images were analysed at a forensic level, including review of metadata.

That analysis revealed anomalies consistent with the photographs not having been taken when alleged. The injuries shown were also linked to an earlier, unrelated hospital presentation by the complainant.

By cross-referencing hospital records, metadata, and the complainant’s continued insistence that Police act, the allegation was exposed as false. Police ultimately charged the complainant with a false accusation offence. The complainant pleaded guilty and received a custodial sentence exceeding 12 months.

While every case turns on its own facts, this outcome demonstrates that the criminal justice system can and will respond to deliberate, sustained and calculated false allegations.

 

Why False Allegations Cause Real Harm

Knowingly false ADVO allegations do not just harm the person accused. They weaken the protective system itself in several important ways:

1. They divert limited resources
   Police time, court lists and support services are consumed by fabricated matters, delaying urgent attention for genuine victims.

2. They create credibility drag
   While decision-makers understand false reports are not the norm, provable fabrications can contribute to increased scepticism that unfairly burdens genuine complainants.

3. They distort risk assessments
   False allegations can skew safety planning, parenting arrangements and interim orders, with serious consequences for children.

4. They undermine public confidence
   The ADVO system relies on community trust. Weaponisation risks turning a life-saving framework into a perceived litigation tool.

Calling out demonstrable fabrication through careful evidence testing, forensic analysis and persistence to hearing serves an important public interest. It protects wrongly accused respondents and helps preserve the integrity of ADVO processes for those who genuinely need protection.

Why This Matters

Even when an unmeritorious ADVO is eventually dismissed, the process itself can operate as a punishment. Interim conditions may apply. Parenting time can be disrupted. Reputational damage can occur. Many respondents feel pressured to consent to orders “without admissions” simply to avoid ongoing litigation or contact.

None of this diminishes the seriousness of genuine domestic violence. ADVOs remain essential. But protective systems work best when they are not weaponised.

Using Police and courts as a “sword rather than a shield” is a serious misuse of the justice system, one that courts are prepared to identify, condemn, and penalise where the evidence supports it.

If you are involved in family law proceedings where an ADVO has been made, or are concerned about how an ADVO may affect parenting arrangements, early advice can make a meaningful difference.

I provide careful, evidence-focused advice in ADVO and family law matters, with a strong emphasis on safety, fairness and procedural integrity. If you would like confidential guidance tailored to your circumstances, you can book an appointment with me to discuss your options and next steps.

---